Lindsay Clancy trial: Defense attorney asks for emergency stay to prevent mistrial

This is an ABC News special report. And good morning everyone, I'm Kira Phillips. We're coming on the air because after years of deliberations, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial says they are unable to come to a unanimous decision. Let's get right to Chief Investigative Correspondent Aaron Katurski. Aaron, what do we know? Kira, this deadlock here in Plymouth, Massachusetts has persisted for days. The defense said there's a holdout juror who was not applying the law, requiring a defendant to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the judge refused to intervene in the jury's deliberations. And a moment ago, the jury came back with a note saying, with a heavy heart, we are unable to reach a unanimous decision. The defense encouraged the judge to tell the jury to keep going one more time. But the judge said over the defense objection, he was going to declare a mistrial. And as the court now comes to order, the judge is going to put that on the record in front of the jury, Kira. All right, let's bring in our Brian Buckmeyer, now legal analyst and attorney. Brian, as we were talking about a possible outcome this week, you actually made the call that you thought this is where we would land. Absolutely. I think just not only looking at the court of public opinion, how people were divided in this case, but also how this case was argued. This became more than just a question of murder of three children. This became an indictment on the health care system about the treatment of women's health in terms of postpartum. And then you look at the jury breakdown and the questions and the notes that came from them. This seems pretty clear. And even though I agree with the defense attorney, make the argument, because I think he believes he's closer to either an acquittal. That might be a bit of a reach, but I think he's closer to the not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. And he believes this is probably the best case he's going to get, I think. And I expect the prosecution to say they want to retry this case. And he's already said he's willing to start next week. But mistrial made sense here. Now we just have to wait and see what the jurors say if they're able to talk after this case is resolved. All right. Reddington is hoping to get the jurors to come back tomorrow. Let's listen in. I don't even have to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday. If you want to go up and petition to the SGC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think you could. It's just a request for the state of the declaration of this trial. So I'll hold off for an hour and then we'll come back in in regards to that. OK. All right. Aaron Katursky. We just heard we were able to get a little bit of what Reddington was asking a petition for. If you want to lay out exactly what he asked for. All I caught was that the judge said, OK, we're going to hold off for an hour if you want to go ahead and go forward with that petition. What exactly did he say? The defense is urging the judge to allow the jury to keep deliberating, Kira. Judge Sullivan said he is inclined to impose the mistrial. But he is going to give Reddington an hour to file his emergency motion with the state's highest court and delay the imposition of a mistrial. So the jury is not going to be brought back into court for that formal declaration for an hour. Now, there's no guarantee this gambit is going to work, Kira. But the defense believes he is close to the verdict he's seeking, not guilty by reason of insanity. Kevin Reddington used some colorful language as we were talking to him last night after court, saying he didn't want a mistrial because he kicked the expletive out of the prosecution's case. So he is determined to bring this to the verdict that he wants, even though the jury has now indicated three separate times it is unable to reach a unanimous verdict. So, Brian, does this mean that the mistrial could actually be reversed? Could be reversed in a sense. What in essence is happening here is, as Aaron pointed out, and I agree as well, Reddington believes he's on the cusp of winning. He thinks in his reading of the tea leaves that he's closer to his result that he wants, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, than an actual guilty verdict. So what in essence he's asking is instead of getting this ruling of a mistrial, having a mistrial happen and then appeal to a higher court, he's asking for what's called injunctive relief. Basically to put a pause on the proceedings, go to a higher court, which doesn't typically just take an hour. Usually when you ask for injunctive relief, it's weeks, months. So this is extremely expedited. But I think based on the eyes on this case, the fact that this is so massive within the state, I can see a judge saying, I will entertain this at least based on the timeline. So what's gonna happen here is Reddington's gonna go to the higher court and say, hey, we're about to be harmed in some sort of way that we need an expedited ruling on our favor to say that the jury should continue to deliberate. However, the issue that I see here is that within the jury instructions, there's a footnote that does talk about when a jury comes back for a second time saying they're deadlocked. Now, I know you're saying, hey, Brian, they asked three times now, but the first time could be was considered a pre Tui Rodriguez instruction, right? So it's kind of like you're zero. Then the second time they came back, the full Tui Rodriguez instruction was given. So that's one. The law, at least as I interpret it, says that that is a mistrial. But, of course, Reddington, who's been phenomenal throughout this case, believes that he has the case law to be able to push back on that and request that the jury continue to deliberate. So, Brian, right when we think we're getting close to some type of verdict and then we thought it was more than likely headed for mistrial. It seems like there are so many twists and turns that we have been surprised a number of times by these jurors, by what's happened in court. And now yet another twist where the judge declares a mistrial. But then the defense attorney comes forward and says, hold on just a minute. I want to file this emergency motion. And the judge backs down and says, OK, I'm going to hold off for one hour. Are you surprised by all the twists and turns and the surprises that we have witnessed? I mean, just this week. Not at all. I think nothing happens within a vacuum. And so I would list out a number of things. One, everyone's talking about this case. And as much as judges want to be perceived as getting it right and never getting it wrong, they don't want to see that in a case of this caliber, they're getting reversed because of an error in which they did. And he was reversed in that case is coming back. I don't think he wants to have the reputation of getting something wrong and then getting reversed again and again in this court with these types of cases. And so I think he's kind of just covering himself a little and say, you know what, I'll give you an hour. If someone above me agrees with you, let it be their issue and not mine. And so I think because of the chaos of this case, I think because of the twist and turns, he's passing the buck in essence in some way, shape or form to say, I'll give you the opportunity to make all the arguments you want. But if you can't win, this must be a mistrial. And Aaron Katursky, if indeed this does turn into a mistrial, it starts all over again, right? It could if the district attorney here in Plymouth County, Timothy Cruz, opts to put Lindsay Clancy on trial again. And in that case, he would have a choice how to charge. Would it be first degree murder again or would it be a lesser charge? Perhaps try to arrange some kind of guilty plea to spare her and the state having to go through all of this again because it has been emotional and terribly sad and difficult for everyone involved. And it's not like Lindsay Clancy is about to go free. Even if there is a mistrial formally declared, she would go back to the hospital, which is what her defense has been seeking, not an outright acquittal, but a finding of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. The Massachusetts version of the insanity defense. The defense believes that Lindsay Clancy needs help in an institution and does not need to be sent to prison for the foreseeable future. The courtroom is incredibly tense. Lindsay Clancy put her head down on the table at this outcome, Kira. Some of her supporters who waited in line here since before sunrise to get in, and there have been more of them than the last few days, they were seen weeping in the courtroom. You bring up an interesting point about supporters, Aaron, and if we could just back up for just a second, it really plays into what we're witnessing here, and that is not only the division among these jurors, but the division within this country. I think that hearts ache for the loss of five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, eight-month-old Callan, those three children that were killed by their mother. And then there is a large part of this country that has a soft spot for Lindsay Clancy because of this conversation about postpartum depression and psychosis and women's mental health. It's been fascinating to watch just the reaction, not only by those there outside court, but all across the country, all across the globe. I was even talking to people this morning in London that have been following this case, Aaron. And we've also seen people who have confronted them to say that she killed her kids and she needs to be held criminally responsible regardless. The only debate that matters, though, Kira, is the one among the nine women and three men who have been locked in that jury room for the last seven days for nearly 40 hours. And Judge Sullivan has instructed them on more than one occasion they are not to listen to the noise, to the debate that we're all having that's playing out on social media. They're only to make their decision based on the evidence. And the foreperson just yesterday said that the holdout juror was having some doubts but would not apply those doubts to joining the other 11 in supplying the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict that the defense is seeking. The judge refused to intervene, said he intends to declare a mistrial, and now we wait for the defense to see if the state's highest court will at all intervene. And while the jurors are not supposed to be paying attention to the debate in any way, we are sure talking about it. And we've been talking about it with doctors across the United States, including Dr. Christina Deleginitis, director of women's behavioral health at Northwell Health. And doctor, if you could just for a moment talk about postpartum mental health. It's not just what Lindsay Clancy says that she was dealing with, what her defense attorneys say she was dealing with, but the country is talking about this. And she has become very relatable to women across the world because of this. That's right, Kira. You know, this moment of national attention, it's an opportunity for us. The question is, will we use it to treat maternal mental health with the urgency it deserves? The facts are that mental health conditions are the leading cause of death for women in the first postpartum year, so the year after delivering their baby. That's more than hemorrhage, infection, or other, et cetera, complications. So cases like this that are bringing the attention to an issue in plain sight that we cannot ignore. Regardless of the specifics of any individual case, as you mentioned, there's a full spectrum of perinatal mental health disorders out there, from the baby blues to perinatal depression to postpartum psychosis, where women are affected every day. These are medical complications of pregnancy. They're not due to personal failure or character flaw. They're biological illnesses that hijack the brain. And, you know, from all the changes in the hormones, inflammation, sleep deprivation, yet funding and the resources to look at this are a fraction of the funding and the training, the attention, compared to other complications of pregnancy. This has to change. We've also been talking about funding, not just treatment, but funding, also the family dynamic, how many times women feel so alone when they're in this situation. Talk to us about just all the levels of discussion that have taken place surrounding women's mental health, including all the way to Capitol Hill and asking lawmakers to pass funding bills now. That's right. And you're right to say that there are numerous gaps. There are numerous places where we have challenges. First of all, these mental health disorders are massively underdiagnosed. There's inconsistent screening that's happening across the country, despite many professional organizations having clear recommendations of screening all through pregnancy and the postpartum. And the recommendations are only focused on depression, which is one of the most common. One in eight perinatal individuals will have clinical depression in pregnancy or postpartum. But what about everything else? What about bipolar disorder? What about psychosis? Also, our clinicians, our frontline doctors and professionals, obstetricians, midwives, primary care physicians, some of them receive very minimal training in perinatal mental health. And yet they're asked to do this screening. They're doing this screening. They're doing everything they can for their patients. And then when they screen and they know that a woman has some symptoms, there's a discussion, there's a conversation, there's a recognition that that woman needs mental health treatment. Then there's this lack of coordination. Our health system sort of falls apart. We can't get the women to the providers that they need. And then there aren't enough of us. There's a lack of mental health specialists, specialists with perinatal mental health experience. There's funding pieces and coordination and health systematic issues in all of those areas. We do have treatments. But the challenge is sort of getting those treatments to the women who need them the most. Doctor, thank you. And Erin, to bring it back to you and just to bring folks up to date here, the judge coming forward saying he was going to declare a mistrial. And that's when we heard Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney who believes clearly that he's on the cusp of winning this case, filed this emergency motion to take this to a higher court. The judge saying, OK, I will hold off for one hour. Let's backtrack just a moment. Talk about this emergency filing and what happens now with, well, it's going to be less than an hour now. Kevin Reddington hinted that he may try to do this to ask for an emergency intervention because he does believe he's on the cusp of winning the case. He believes in his colorful words that he kicked the expletive out of the prosecution's case, as he told us leaving court last night, Kira. And so he doesn't want to accept a mistrial and he believes that Judge Sullivan has discretion to force the jury to keep going. They've been stuck for days and we finally learned yesterday why. The foreperson sent a note saying there's one juror who, in her view, is refusing to apply his doubts about the prosecution's case to a verdict and instead appears hellbent on a conviction. And the defense says that's not supposed to be how it works. The judge has been reluctant to intervene in jury deliberations, which are supposed to happen behind closed doors, without any of us really knowing what the dynamics are. And so now with Lindsay Clancy's trial seemingly near its conclusion, her supporters are crying in the bathroom. Everyone in the courtroom was visibly shocked when the judge said he would declare a mistrial. That same emotional debate, Kira, that you and the doctor were talking about, what this case has meant to so many, has really weighed on Lindsay Clancy's supporters and her detractors, both of whom are here at court waiting for the outcome. Brian, your thoughts as an attorney about the next 50 plus minutes now that we wait? So I would imagine that defense attorney Reddington was already prepared for this based on what Aaron Katerosky told us and what we saw also yesterday after the court had ended. And so I imagine he's briefed, meaning he's written out the motion that he's made, and he's presenting it to the court either now or in the coming minutes. But this is a long shot. This is not, I think, a strong argument by the defense. I'm looking at the jury instructions that have footnotes and explanations as to what you do when a jury comes back with two deadlocks. I don't have the case law. I don't practice in Massachusetts, so I don't know every case there. But I'm looking at the statute, and by statute, it doesn't seem like he has a strong argument. But this is the right move to make by the defense. This is the move that I would make, and I think any proper defense attorney would make, even if it is a Hail Mary, to say, I believe I'm on victory's doorstep. And to put my client through a second trial, to put not only my client but her ex-husband, her ex-mother-in-law, the state himself through it all, is not what he wants. And the idea usually is, when it comes to a retrial, that the prosecution has the advantage. They've seen all the tricks, all the things the defense could pull out of their sleeve, all the good questioning that muddies up the credibility of the prosecution's witness. They've seen Reddington's playbook, and for him to have to do it again, he is at a slight disadvantage. At least that's the concept behind retrying a case. So he doesn't want to do this. But inversely, the prosecution seems very happy and really open with the idea of a mistrial, because they know they stand to have somewhat of the benefit here. They're also, of course, probably listening to us discuss this. They're looking at what kind of potential jurors they can have. And I think that's what we're seeing here. But in a few minutes, we will get a decision from the higher court in Massachusetts. I don't believe it would be to keep the jury deliberating. I imagine that any judge, any person in the state knows what's going on with this case. And hopefully we'll get a quick decision from that judge, and we'll be right back here within an hour to get the mistrial. Do you think, Brian, because it's a holiday weekend, that the pressure is on? Oh, absolutely. I mean, do I want to say that people in my judicial community are steadfast and they're thinking, hey, it's Friday, we've got to work to 5 o'clock, and justice needs to be done no matter if it's 5-0-1, 5-0-2, or 6 o'clock? Yeah, I would hope to believe that. But people are people. People have plans for the weekend. People want to get out of the court system. These are government workers, government employees who have families and loved ones. And so I think that could lend to the benefit of this is going to be expedited. This is like, hey, we've got to move, guys. We've got to get this done because 5 o'clock is coming. We want to get out of here. But it's, what, 11-49? Brian, thank you.